THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39026/10
Ladislav FILKA
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 May 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 30 January 2012, as amended on 16 March 2012, requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Ladislav Filka, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Sobota, a lawyer practising in Nitrianske Rudno.
2. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková, and their Co-Agent, Mrs M. Bálintová.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicant replaced his late mother as plaintiff in proceedings concerning the determination of shares in an estate. The proceedings lasted from 11 June 1993 to 20 November 2008 at two levels of jurisdiction. The first-instance court was prevented from dealing with the case for approximately three years as it had to wait for the outcome of a different set of proceedings.
5. On 29 September 2009 the Constitutional Court found that the courts involved had breached the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded 4,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction and ordered the courts concerned to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
COMPLAINT
6. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in his case and that he did not obtain appropriate redress at domestic level.
THE LAW
7. The applicant complained about excessive length of the proceedings and that the redress provided by the Constitutional Court was not sufficient. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
8. By letters dated 30 January 2012 and 16 March 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
9. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge the applicant’s status of the victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved.
I, Miroslava Bálintová, the Co-Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay to the applicant Ladislav Filka the sum of EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros). This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicant with respect to the violation of his right under the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
The Government would suggest that the above information be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention.
In the event of the Court’s decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertake to pay to the applicant the declared sum within three months from the date of notification of the decision. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. This payment will constitute the final settlement of the case.”
10. In a letter of 1 March 2012 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was low.
11. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
12. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
13. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
14. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-227, ECHR 2006‑,‑ECHR 2006‑V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 39-43, 3 October 2006; Rapoš v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 32-34, 20 May 2008; or Bič v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 39-41, 4 November 2008).
15. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases given that the applicant obtained partial redress at domestic level (see also Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 93-98, ECHR 2006‑V) – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
16. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
17. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Marialena TsirliIneta Ziemele
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy